LexSEEMANT KUMAR SINGH versus MAHESH PS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 587 SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH v. MAHESH PS & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2023) MARCH 21, 2023 [KRISHNA MURARI AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.] Bail – Adverse remarks – Expunction of – During the pendency of bail proceedings of respondent no.1, the High Court made adverse remarks against the appellants, who had no lis in the proceedings – Further, the High Court issued direction for seeking reports against appellant no.2 during the bail proceedings – On appeal, held – Remarks made by High Court against appellant no.2 are unreasonable and without justification as appellant no.2 has no personal involvement in the case – No evidence against appellant no.2 has been analysed and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself – Also, appellant no.3 is not a party to the bail proceedings, it was unreasonable to pass adverse remarks – Further, the direction issued by the high Court to seek reports against the appellant no.2 during bail proceedings of respondent no .1 is liable to be set aside as no opportunity of hearing was given to appellant no .2 and the High Court must have confined itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the bail of respondent no.1 – Adverse remarks passed by the High Court against the appellants expunged and order of High Court quashed. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. As far as the Appellant No.2 is concerned, the remarks made by the High Court against him seem to be unreasonable and without justification. The Appellant No.2 is merely a government employee of the department that is conducting the investigation and has no personal involvement with the case. The Appellant No. 2 is not an accused and has nothing to do with the transaction of the crime, let alone the bail proceedings. No evidence against him has been analyzed by the court and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself, however, scathing and egregious remarks have still been passed [2023] 3 S.C.R. 587 587 A B C D E F G H 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. against him. In such a scenario, this Court finds that the remarks passed by the High Court to be unfair and not in the interest of justice. [Para 18][594-A-B] 2. In so far as the Appellant No. 3 is concerned, even though he is an accused in the alleged crime, however, what must not be forgotten is the fact that he does not have any lis in the bail proceedings, as the same was exclusive to Respondent No.1. In such a scenario, where Appellant No.3 was not party to the ongoing bail proceedings, this Court finds it to be extremely unreasonable for the High Court to pass such adverse remarks against him. When no allegations were made against Appellant No.3, and the presumption of innocence is still functional in the favor of the Appellant No.3, this Court finds it to be a gross abuse of the process of law to pass such adverse remarks against him, as such remarks do not just cause injury to his reputation, but also has the potential to cause great prejudice to his actual trial. [Paras 19, 20][594-C-F] 3. The High Court during the bail proceedings of a third party are manifestly arbitrary and unjust, and the High Court must have confined itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the bail of the Respondent No.1. A court of bail, especially in cases where the bail is sought for by a third party, is not a court that has all the relevant information to pass an order on the merits of an unconnected party, and such an order, if passed, has the potential to cause great harm to the said party without them being afforded an actual and meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. It is a well settled principle of law that any party, when being accused of an illegal act, must be given an opportunity be fairly heard. This opportunity to be meaningfully heard however has not been afforded to the Appellant No.2. [Para 25][596-E-G] Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar (1986) 2 SCC 569 : [1986] 2 SCR 470; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566 : [1987] 1 SCR 1; Election Commission of India v. M. R. Vijaybhaskar (2021) 9 SCC 770; RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha (2010) 15 SCC 85 : [2010] 9 SCR 1107; State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan & A B C D E F G H 589 Anr. (2020) 15 SCC 251 : [2020] 2 SCR 553; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others (2011) 14 SCC 770 : [2011] 15 SCR 540 – relied on. Case law reference [1986] 2 SCR 470 relied on Para 15 [1987] 1 SCR 1 rel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.